Allen v. State
| Decision Date | 15 January 1952 |
| Citation | 62 So.2d 70 |
| Parties | ALLEN v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Whitaker Brothers, Tampa, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and William A. O'Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Affirmed.
HOBSON, J., not participating.
On Rehearing
Appellant was tried and convicted for owning and operating a gambling house and gambling implements. Motion for new trial was denied and a sentence of two years in the State penitentiary was imposed. On appeal to this court the judgment was affirmed by a divided court. A petition for rehearing and a reargument was granted.
The record and the briefs have been re-examined and a majority of the court have reached the conclusion that the judgment should be reversed and a new trial awarded because of prejudicial remarks of the trial judge to the jury during the trial of the case and because of the lack of showing or weakness of any showing that the house or room in question was being operated as a gambling house with the knowledge or consent of appellant.
It follows that on rehearing the judgment appealed from is reversed and a new trial awarded.
Reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diecidue v. State, 30913
...the criminal rule with reference thereto, in order to justify a verdict of guilty on counts one and two of the Information. Allen v. State, Fla., 62 So.2d 70. We have delayed quoting the charge which is challenged and which was given as hereinbefore recited upon special request of the jury,......
-
Williams v. State
...For the reasons pointed out, there was merit to the contention that the trial judg's attitude militated against a fair trial. Allen v. State, Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 70; Diecidue v. State, Fla.1961, 131 So.2d 7, and Leavine v. State, 109 Fla. 447, 147 So. Reversed for a new trial. ROBERTS, C. J.......